Constitutional Amendment

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
L

Lucio21_IHB

New member
<strong><a href="http://www.vickitruitt.com/endorsements.htm">David Disiere</a></strong>, one of the local correspondent reported that the constitutional amendment regarding Texas rail relocation and improvement fund is on the floor. Disiere also informed that the authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities are also meant under the same legislative amendment. There are all possibilities of implementing the same for all the liabilities and the preconceived obligations. These are to be payable from the money in the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund. The amendment is well composed and facilitates with some liberal authorizations. It will authorize the legislature to dedicate to the fund some sorts of state money. This is the money which in general is not otherwise dedicated by the constitution. With the application of this amendment proposal these types of amenities will be provided to the state, and the state will have some added financial benefits. There will be the undertakings related to the traffic congestion on state highways. As these respective highways have increased in a rapid proportion during the recent years, the amendment is going to solve the problem for sure. The ability depends on the usability of the shipping departments. The more they will be able to ship goods using railroads the more will be the decrease in the number of trucks traveling on highways. This is the way through which the traffic congestion is going get reduced dramatically. The state is going to get rid of the congestion hopefully in a very short notice and the people of the state are keeping their fingers crossed for the application of the proposal.
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1213334579]Is it unfair to start blocking someone after their first post?</blockquote>


No
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1213334098]What part of this exactly am I supposed to give a crap about?</blockquote>


Hmm, I think he meant to link this one. The 17.5% surtax being proposed to be added on top of the top 9.3% marginal income tax for single income filers over $150,000 in California. $250K for couples.



Listed as a wealth estate tax witht he 45% tax on property value exceeding $40 million which is how it will likely show up on the ballot if it has the raw signatures but with the hook on annual income tax add in buried in the proposition.



So, does anybody think a 9.3%+17.%+33% = 60%(if Fed returns old rateS) marginal tax bracket will put a dent in the million dollar home market of California?





<a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i759_07-0082_amdt_1_ns.pdf">1311. (07-0082, Amdt. #1NS)</a>



Wealth Tax. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.



Summary Date: 01/02/08 Circulation Deadline: 06/02/08 Signatures Required: 694,354



Proponent: Paul McCauley



Imposes one-time 45% tax on value of property exceeding $40 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. Imposes one-time tax (between 26.5% - 44.3%) on property exceeding $5 million when resident dies or leaves California. Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married, increasing to 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married. Creates tax credits. Requires State to acquire majority shares of specified corporations to influence environmental practices. May exempt new revenues from education funding requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: One-time increase in state revenues potentially in the low hundreds of billions of dollars from imposition of a wealth tax, and ongoing increase in state revenues potentially in the billions of dollars from imposition of the tax on certain people dying or leaving the state. This revenue would be allocated to accomplish various goals related to environmental protection. Potential annual net increase in personal income tax revenues in the tens of billions of dollars annually from tax rate increases and new tax credits. The first $7.5 billion annually would be allocated to the state General Fund with additional revenue allocated for environmental protection. Unknown state and local revenue reductions ? potentially in the tens of billions of dollars annually ? due to changes in taxpayer behavior. (Initiative 07-0082.) (Full Text)

<a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i759_07-0082_amdt_1_ns.pdf">1311. (07-0082, Amdt. #1NS)</a>
 
How will they know that someone has left California?



If they sell, and then stay awhile, and then just disappear. With rates

like that, I'd disappear.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1213345001][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1213334098]What part of this exactly am I supposed to give a crap about?</blockquote>


Hmm, I think he meant to link this one. The 17.5% surtax being proposed to be added on top of the top 9.3% marginal income tax for single income filers over $150,000 in California. $250K for couples.



Listed as a wealth estate tax witht he 45% tax on property value exceeding $40 million which is how it will likely show up on the ballot if it has the raw signatures but with the hook on annual income tax add in buried in the proposition.



So, does anybody think a 9.3%+17.%+33% = 60%(if Fed returns old rateS) marginal tax bracket will put a dent in the million dollar home market of California?





<a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i759_07-0082_amdt_1_ns.pdf">1311. (07-0082, Amdt. #1NS)</a>



Wealth Tax. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.



Summary Date: 01/02/08 Circulation Deadline: 06/02/08 Signatures Required: 694,354



Proponent: Paul McCauley



Imposes one-time 45% tax on value of property exceeding $40 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. Imposes one-time tax (between 26.5% - 44.3%) on property exceeding $5 million when resident dies or leaves California. Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married, increasing to 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married. Creates tax credits. Requires State to acquire majority shares of specified corporations to influence environmental practices. May exempt new revenues from education funding requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: One-time increase in state revenues potentially in the low hundreds of billions of dollars from imposition of a wealth tax, and ongoing increase in state revenues potentially in the billions of dollars from imposition of the tax on certain people dying or leaving the state. This revenue would be allocated to accomplish various goals related to environmental protection. Potential annual net increase in personal income tax revenues in the tens of billions of dollars annually from tax rate increases and new tax credits. The first $7.5 billion annually would be allocated to the state General Fund with additional revenue allocated for environmental protection. Unknown state and local revenue reductions ? potentially in the tens of billions of dollars annually ? due to changes in taxpayer behavior. (Initiative 07-0082.) (Full Text)

<a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i759_07-0082_amdt_1_ns.pdf">1311. (07-0082, Amdt. #1NS)</a></blockquote>


Wow... I don't understand why the married limit isn't doubled from the single limit. And while I fully support paying for what you get, an additional 17.5% is a pretty big hit. If this passes, I would expect to see highly compensated employees seek non-

"income" compensation (e.g., stock, stock options, better benefits, pensions) over cash.
 
I'm happily surprised, it has failed to gather enough signatures. While I'd like to believe it's because the people were smart enough not to sign it, I actually suspect the real issue is the people behind it didn't have the funds to post enough people outside of target to get the signatures.



So call "wealth" taxes, similar to California's First5, are popular and trendy ways to raise taxes for pet programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top